Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>]

Karl,

--- Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> wrote:
> Any comments?

I hope that you end up in the usual position of the minority vote, in
which case everyone else votes against WLS. ;)

Seriously, I can't see how you can support such a blatantly
anti-competitive proposal as WLS. None of the proponents of WLS took my
"Cookie Challenge", or the "Effects Test", if you prefer, at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00350.html

(which had been offered multiple times) If you support WLS, it is no
different than supporting the similar deal that is offered in that
test, since the effect is identical.

If I propose a deal with ICANN to do something similar, and cut out the
middleman Verisign while we're at it, would you support it? Of course
not, it'd be ridiculous to just hand over millions of dollars to
someone, just because they ask for it. At least thieves in back alleys
threaten your life, before asking to steal your money. WLS is to the
detriment of consumers and registrars, and the marketplace as a whole,
and you're prepared to acquiesce simply because Verisign *asks*?
Millions of dollars aren't going into Verisign and SnapNames' pockets
for adding any value whatsoever -- it is coming at someone's expense.
The value is in the domain names themselves, intrinsically, not the
allocation method that Verisign is picking to maximize its profits.

Remind me again who you purport to represent? The Names Council report
is clearly against WLS, on a consensus basis. Furthermore, there are
thousands upon thousands of posts against it at:

http://forum.icann.org/wls/?expire=100000

and

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?antiwls

Why do you go against the consensus? Simply because you think ICANN
should get out of the way? That's a dangerous precedent, to allow the
registry operator carte blanche, especially this one.

Thankfully, should the Board do the wrong thing, registrars will hold
them accountable, as per their Registrar agreement, and in court. ICANN
took a beating in court last time. Looks like it's going to be two in a
row, if it gets that far. The Board might want to read:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00303.html

for how the challenge will be framed at the Registrar level, and as for
the anti-trust aspects, that should be pretty obvious. It'll be
interesting to read the documents that come up in Discovery.

Touton's argument on price was a joke, too -- if he waved his hands any
more, he'd be liable to take off like a bird. :) Dotster has gone on
record that they'd run WLS for $6/name, if offered the chance. That
should give you an idea that $24 is *not* cost based. I bet if offered
for tender, folks would bid far below $6, for the chance to run such a
simple database.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html